Congress strips merit from the military and shackles the president in one bill



The Trump administration recently released an extremely promising National Security Strategy — but the same cannot be said about the proposed National Defense Authorization Act for the 2026 fiscal year.

The House and Senate’s compromise NDAA appears to be in tension with the goals of the administration’s strategy. While the National Security Strategy prioritizes a hemispheric defense of the American homeland, the NDAA locks decision-makers into maintaining unnecessary overseas troop levels. Despite President Trump’s stated strategic aims, Congress seems intent on safeguarding the national security priorities and infrastructure of previous eras.

The NDAA represents the ‘deep state,’ a combination of entrenched interests, committees, lobbies, and bureaucracies that value continuity over strategy and reform.

Restricting the drawdown of troops stationed overseas, increasingly murky foreign entrenchment through legally binding efforts to sell arms, and dubious clauses requiring congressional approval at every turn, all serve to bind the commander in chief’s hands. All of this reeks of a shadowy order desperately trying to maintain the status quo at the expense of the will of the people who elected Donald Trump in 2024.

This cannot stand.

Section 1249 of the NDAA states that U.S. forces in Europe cannot fall below 76,000 for more than 45 days without presidential certifications to Congress. This is supposed to ensure that troop reductions present no threat to NATO partners or U.S. national security. (Absurdly, the bill requires the U.S. to consult with every NATO ally and even “relevant non-NATO partners.”) But stripping the president of essential discretion through ludicrous legislative roadblocks categorically subverts his authority under the Constitution.

Section 1255 states that troop levels cannot dip below 28,500 in the Korean Peninsula, nor can wartime operational control be transferred without an identical trial by fire of congressional approvals and national-security certifications.

Shifting our military focus to our own backyard was a stated goal of the National Security Strategy. If this vision is to be implemented, Congress cannot serve as a bureaucratic middleman that hinders deployment flexibility through pedantic checklists.

Americans need to understand that the NDAA would obstruct the execution of President Trump’s agenda. As written, it functions as a deliberate statutory barrier to presidential decision-making. This denotes a redistribution of war powers from the elected executive to a sprawling and unaccountable institutional structure.

The NDAA represents what Americans call the “deep state,” a combination of entrenched interests, committees, lobbies, and bureaucracies that value continuity over strategy and reform.

This continuity becomes clear when you look at what the House and Senate didn’t include in the compromise NDAA. The Senate’s original bill contained a provision barring the use of DEI in service-academy admissions — a measure that would have required merit-only standards and prevented racial profiling. Congress stripped that section out. The final bill includes a few weak gestures toward limiting DEI, but none of them meet President Trump’s goal of a military that rejects race and sex as factors altogether.

RELATED: Mexico has cartel armies. Blue America has cartel politics.

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

As written, the NDAA gives a future Democratic president the opportunity to reintroduce woke indoctrination in the military with the stroke of a pen. And laws favoring DEI at our nation’s most vital institutions could resurface on a whim, using typical “diversity is our strength” platitudes.

Despite its name, the NDAA functions less like a defense bill and more like the legal backbone of America’s global posture. Whatever promises the National Security Strategy makes, they cannot be realized so long as the current NDAA pulls in the opposite direction. Strategy should shape institutions — not the other way around.

In Washington jargon, the NDAA is treated as “must-pass” legislation. That label has no legal or constitutional basis. And even if it must pass, no one claims it must be signed.

The National Security Strategy reflects the will of voters; the NDAA reflects bureaucratic inertia. That is why the Trump administration cannot, in good conscience, approve this bill. Our escape from stagnation, mediocrity, and endless foreign entanglements depends on rejecting it — and time is running out.

Editor’s note: A version of this article was published originally at the American Mind.

Zuckerberg's vision: US military AI and tech around the world



Mark Zuckerberg's Meta is sharing the wealth with U.S. allies in Europe and NATO.

Since late 2024, Zuckerberg's tech giant has made Llama — its own large language model — available to foreign countries within the Five Eyes security partnership between the U.S., Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Now, Meta is expanding the access to other countries while partnering with advanced-AI military contractors.

'We're building for completely on-device deployment of AI.'

Wearable products, AI programs, and other tools are being shared with allies in France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and South Korea, in order to enhance "decision-making, mission-specific capabilities, and operational efficiency," Meta wrote.

The technology includes a partnership with Anduril, Palmer Luckey's industry-leading augmented reality defense company.

Calling the effort the "largest of its kind," Meta's partnership is meant to equip soldiers with enhanced decision-making capabilities. This is apparent with Anduril's recently released EagleEye, an AI/AR warfighter helmet.

RELATED: 'Swarms of killer robots': Former Biden official says US military is afraid of using AI

EdgeRunner AI is used on a military laptop. Image provided to Blaze News courtesy of EdgeRunner

EagleEye represents the best of what the video game world has to offer, brought to life.

Not only does the helmet display directional mapping as if belonging to a gamer dropped into a first-person shooting game, but it also provides a form of X-ray vision that allows users to see allies and enemies on the map through coordinated data.

The AR tech also utilizes spatial audio and frequency detection to alert operators of hidden threats. Rear and flank sensors also ensure that the allied soldier is not ambushed.

Anduril's Lattice AI is also making waves, and it too looks like something gamers will recognize.

Using data from drones, sensors, and satellites, it creates a real-time 3D battlefield map. The program boasts a wide range of deployable formats, including detecting battlefield threats or intrusions on border security.

In November 2024, Meta opened-sourced its Llama model for the U.S. military and its contractors to build upon. That move is now paying off, as Meta will now share what the company EdgeRunner has built, a closed-ended chatbot for soldiers.

RELATED: 'Insane radical leftists' are gone: Zuckerberg and Palmer Luckey reunite for US military project

Anduril Lattice battlefield software. Photo by John Keeble/Getty Images

EdgeRunner AI is essentially a search function for soldiers; it can be run as a local program on almost any consumer-grade device, and according to Meta, it can be used to identify safe locations for aircraft or even accurately translate languages.

"This is all part of our joint effort to ensure the warfighter has access to advanced AI technology at the tactical edge," an EdgeRunner spokesperson told Return. "What's especially unique about our work with Meta is that we're building for completely on-device deployment of AI, meaning it's running locally on your laptop, workstation, or smartphone, disconnected from the cloud."

This method avoids the necessity for uninterrupted cloud connectivity, which helps keep the data out of the enemy's hands, too.

The AI program has an all-encompassing goal and is specifically designed to be adaptable to different job titles. This means it will be coupled with logistics, maintenance, and combat roles.

Meta is spreading its footprint worldwide and said because of this, it hopes allies will deploy the AI ethically, responsibly, and in accordance with "relevant international law and fundamental principles."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

When American men answered the call of civilization



Eighty-one years have passed since American troops landed at Normandy — an event that changed the course of history and helped bring down the Nazi regime. Yet the 80th anniversary came and went last year with barely a murmur of national recognition.

That silence speaks volumes.

The most enduring lessons come not from strategy but from the men who waded ashore, knowing they might not live through the morning. Why did they do it?

Deep divisions have clouded American political life, but failing to commemorate the most significant amphibious invasion in history marks more than forgetfulness. It reflects a broader unease with our own history and the sacrifices that secured our liberty.

The Trump administration has begun to reverse that drift, reviving public recognition of the past in ways absent during the Biden years. Critics have seized on moments like President Trump’s recent remarks at West Point, where he appeared to downplay Allied contributions. Those contributions must never be forgotten. But the American role in defeating Nazi Germany — and especially in the brutal and heroic assault on Fortress Europe — cannot be overstated.

No day better symbolizes that effort than June 6, 1944.

The beginning of the end

D-Day ranks with Gettysburg, Meuse-Argonne, and Iwo Jima in the American martial canon. Its outcome was anything but assured.

Operation Neptune — the seaborne phase of Operation Overlord — followed months of planning that began in late 1943 after Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and Joseph Stalin conferred in Tehran. Stalin had pushed hard for a second front to relieve Soviet pressure. Churchill preferred a Mediterranean approach. But the Americans insisted on France. We won the argument.

Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower became supreme commander. British Gen. Bernard Montgomery was named ground commander. The invasion would take place in late spring.

Three major conditions needed to be met before Neptune could launch.

First, the Germans had to be pinned down in the east. Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 had already opened a two-front war that Germany could not sustain. Despite massive Soviet losses, the Red Army had recovered. The Wehrmacht had not. It was arguably Hitler’s greatest blunder.

Second, the Allies needed air superiority. Through strategic bombing and air-to-air combat, the U.S. and Britain weakened the Luftwaffe, hitting factories, airfields, and supply depots. By June 1944, Allied fighters controlled the skies over France.

Third, the Mediterranean had to be secure. Campaigns in North Africa and Italy tied down German forces and freed up Allied naval resources for the invasion of Northern France.

With those conditions met, the Allies selected Normandy as the landing site. Pas-de-Calais was closer to Germany and easier to resupply but far more heavily fortified by the Nazis. Normandy offered a more realistic point of attack — provided the Germans could be fooled.

Deception and preparation

Operation Fortitude aimed to do just that. Allied intelligence fed Germany a steady diet of false information. Fake radio traffic, dummy landing craft, and bogus army units — including a fictitious command under Lt. Gen. George Patton — convinced Hitler that Calais would be the invasion point.

The ruse worked. German commanders remained fixated on Calais long after troops began pouring ashore at Normandy.

Military theorists had long understood how war resists prediction. “Everything in war is simple,” Carl von Clausewitz observed, “but the simplest thing is difficult.” Clausewitz’s “friction” and Helmuth von Moltke’s warning that “no plan of operation extends with any certainty beyond first contact with the main hostile force” applied in full. Amphibious landings, by their nature, magnify every point of failure.

The plan called for landings on five beaches, with three airborne divisions deployed inland. U.S. forces hit Utah and Omaha. British and Canadian forces landed at Gold, Juno, and Sword. Airborne units dropped behind German lines to disrupt reinforcements.

The moon and tide had to align. Weather delayed the launch from June 5 to June 6. That delay caught the Germans off guard. General Erwin Rommel had left France to celebrate his wife’s birthday. Other commanders were away conducting war games.

The landings begin

Allied bombers struck German positions after midnight, followed by naval bombardment. Many shells landed behind the defenses, missing their targets. That failure would prove costly.

British forces advanced steadily, although only the Canadians reached their assigned D-Day objectives. Montgomery had hoped to seize Caen that day. British troops would not take the city for weeks.

The 4th Infantry Division at Utah Beach caught a break, landing in the wrong spot due to strong currents. But the division met light resistance and advanced quickly. The 2nd Ranger Battalion scaled Pointe du Hoc and took heavy losses but completed its mission.

RELATED: The Army called him a handicap. History calls him a hero.

Photo courtesy of Walt Larimore

Omaha was a bloodbath. German defenses remained largely intact, and U.S. troops were cut down on the sand. Casualties reached 2,400 — the highest of any landing. Despite the carnage, immortalized in “Saving Private Ryan,” small units clawed their way inland, broke through the defenses, and held the beachhead.

By nightfall, the Allies had established a tenuous grip on Normandy. U.S. forces pushed toward the port of Cherbourg. British units hammered away at Caen. American troops slogged through the bocage.

On July 25, U.S. forces broke out at Saint-Lo. By August, the Allies had encircled 50,000 German troops in the Falaise pocket. By the end of August, Paris was liberated. Operation Overlord had succeeded.

What D-Day means now

The victory in Normandy depended on strategy, deception, adaptation, and above all, human will. The Allies fought as partners — ideologically divided but functionally united. The Axis powers, despite ideological similarities, failed to coordinate effectively.

Every war plan eventually collapses. Things go wrong. What matters is how commanders and soldiers respond to chaos. D-Day demanded that kind of adaptation under fire. Clausewitz understood this. So did the men who stormed the beaches.

The most enduring lessons come not from strategy but from the men who waded ashore, knowing they might not live through the morning. Why did they do it?

J. Glenn Gray, in “The Warriors: Reflections on Men in Battle,” offers one answer:

Numberless soldiers have died, more or less willingly, not for country or honor or religious faith or for any other abstract good, but because they realized that by fleeing their posts and rescuing themselves, they would expose their companions to greater danger. Such loyalty to the group is the essence of fighting morale.

These soldiers protected more than one another. They preserved the American republic. They fought against an ideology bent on erasing it.

Success in war depends not only on weapons and tactics but on leadership, courage, honor, and duty. These virtues allow men to overcome fear and endure the chaos of combat. On June 6, 1944, those virtues burned white-hot in a handful of men who refused to retreat.

U.S. Army historian S.L.A. Marshall wrote that “thousands of Americans were spilled onto Omaha Beach. The high ground was won by a handful of men who on that day burned with a flame bright beyond common understanding.”

That flame still burns.

We’ve seen it elsewhere throughout our history — at the Chosin Reservoir, in Hue, in Fallujah, and in Helmand Province. America continues to produce men willing to face death to protect others. We should thank God for that fact — and pray we remain a nation worthy of such sacrifice.

DEBUNKED: These are the 3 biggest LIES about Ukraine



Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy has made it crystal clear that he’s not letting Biden off easy.

McCarthy has directed his committee to open an impeachment inquiry into the president, claiming that “bank records show that nearly 20 million dollars in payments were directed to the Biden family members and associates through various shell companies.”

And, not surprisingly, a lot of that money is connected to the most talked-about Eastern European country in recent times: Ukraine.

While the media portray Ukraine as the innocent underdog, they completely ignore that the country was once plagued with corruption, elected a comedian as president, seemingly fixed its corruption problem overnight, and suddenly became the poster child for democracy.

Not only that, but a country that none of us used to think about and that has been heavily implicated in the Biden family’s crimes is now receiving all of our tax dollars.

“What if everything you’ve been told about Ukraine is a lie?” Glenn Beck asks.

“It’s not about democracy, it’s not about stopping future wars, and it is definitely not about helping our trustworthy allies in the Ukrainian government.”

According to Glenn, it’s not just that everything you’ve been told is a lie, it’s that this “is the biggest heist in all of human history.”

The first lie that we’ve been told is that we “have to save Ukraine for democracy. If they fail, democracy fails,” Glenn says. “But does Ukraine even care about democracy?”

Lie number two, Glenn says, is that “we have to stop Russia, right now,” which he claims is the “neocon battle cry.”

The third lie is that “the war is going great. The money we’re supplying is relatively small. It’s no big deal,” he adds. “All of these claims have been the basis for the war in Ukraine. It’s how they’re justifying the risk of nuclear war,” Glenn continues. “If I showed you just one of these was a lie, would you still support the war?”


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Macron and Putin agree that a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine crisis is needed after a weekend phone call



During a Sunday phone call, French President Emmanuel Macron and Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed for the need to find a diplomatic solution to the ongoing crisis on Ukraine’s border.

Reuters reported that the French and Russian foreign ministers will meet in the coming days to hold diplomatic talks and seek to hold a summit where Russia, Ukraine, and NATO allies establish a new European security order.

A statement from Macron’s office said that the two presidents discussed “the need to prioritize a diplomatic solution to the current crisis” and that “if conditions are met,” a diplomatic path will allow for the establishment of this new security order the New York Times reported.

The Kremlin, however, appears not to believe that Western leaders are seeking a diplomatic resolution. Shortly after Putin’s conversation with Macron, the Kremlin said that leaders of Western nations were pushing the Ukrainian government to pursue a “military solution” to the ongoing conflict.

Earlier this month, ABC News reported that the Kremlin wants guarantees from Western nations and NATO allies that Ukraine and other formerly Soviet nations will not join defense alliances that purposefully exclude Russia.

Meanwhile, the Ukrainian government insisted that it does not plan to launch an offensive against the Russian-backed separatists in its eastern region despite Russian insistence to the contrary.

The French and Russian presidents agreed to resume diplomatic talks within the Normandy Format. The Normandy Format is a negotiating channel created a little less than a decade ago by France, Germany, Ukraine, and Russia to resolve a similar conflict when Russia attempted to annex Crimea in 2014.

The defense minister of the Russian-allied and Ukraine bordering nation of Belarus, announced that Russia’s military deployment in Belarus would be extended as the two nations continue their joint military exercises along the Belarusian-Ukrainian border.

Despite Russia’s insistence that they have no intention of pursuing an armed conflict, American leadership remains unconvinced. The United States continues to insist that it has intelligence indicating an imminent Russian invasion of Ukraine.

And, despite the increasingly menacing presence of Russian troops along Ukraine’s borders, Ukrainian national security officials believe that Russia is unlikely to pursue conventional means of warfare.

Oleksiy Danilov, President Zelenskyy’s top national security adviser, believes that Russia is most likely to pursue a series of intense cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns while increasing economic pressure to foster social discontent within Ukraine.

Amidst the chaos, Zelenskyy seeks to meet with Putin so that the two might reach a diplomatic solution between themselves.

Biden Leaves Ally UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson In Dark On Afghanistan For More Than A Day

Biden ignored requests from NATO ally and United Kingdom Prime Minister Boris Johnson to speak about the Aghanistan crisis for more than 24 hours this week.

While The Biden Administration Amps Up Cultural Marxism, Europe Is Pushing It Back

Do American policymakers have any idea what might happen if most of Europe someday considers American cultural influence to be more toxic than Chinese economic influence?

A United Europe Aligning With China Would Be A Disaster For The United States

Under no scenario would a unified European Union aligned with China be in the interest of America. Indeed, a united EU might not be a friend but a foe.

Ring In Your Holidays By Buying All The Australian Wines The Chinese Won’t

Bullied by Communist China, Australia has called, and the world must answer — one bottle of delicious Australian wine at a time.